WYSINWOTS

Introduction

Remember the 1950's? Hoola hoops and rebels with and without causes were
in. 78rpm records and fountain pens were out. Eisenhower was President. The
cold war was heating up. Cars were adorned with huge fins and 45rpm record
changers were selling like hotcakes. And test patterns were familiar television
commodities at the beginning and end of the television broadcast day.

Well test patterns are back and this time they're digital, and this time
they're on the Web.

To most baby boomers, test patterns in the 1950's were frequent companions.
The viewing days started late and ended early, so the chance of catching a test
pattern (accompanied by the national anthem) at sign-on or sign-off was actually
quite good. These distorted, symmetrical graphics were used by adventuresome
home viewers and tv repairman alike to manually align the electron beams of the
picture tube so that the image was properly rendered. Test patterns embodied
the accuracy of our personal window into the broadcast ether. They certified
that we saw Uncle Miltie as he really was - makeup, high heels, gowns and all.

Test patterns are now fulfilling essentially the same role that they did in
the 1950's. Only now they are being used to determine the level of HTML
compliance supported by Web browsers. Our own World Wide Web Test Pattern
[http://www.uark.edu/~wrg/] is one such resource for advanced cybernauts and
developers alike in their quest to keep their desktop in synch with the Web
world around them.

HTML Anarchy

The utility of the Web Test Pattern, and other compliance checkers, is due
to one simple fact: there is no orthodoxy when it comes to HTML standards.
Since the Web's inception, standards have been elusive.

It has been said that the Internet is anarchy that works. If this is true,
then the Web is the ultimate fulfillment of that anarchy: multimedia splendor
built around too many conventions and too few rules.

Let me put the problem in perspective. The Web is really a pair of "killer"
protocols: HTML (HyperText Markup Language), and HTTP (HyperText Transport
Protocol). One of these, HTML, is strongly influenced by client-side
developments. The fact that a server can be set, with minimal tweaking. to
provide any batch of bits that client Web browsers can handle is an enticement
for developers and end-users to build new media, applications and file formats
into their offerings. The point to remember is that servers are basically
passive distributors of Web media, and that independence allows Web client
developers and users to move ahead at a very rapid pace.

The first experimentation in stretching the envelope (or trying to burst it,
depending on one's point of view) was Netscape's use of extensions to the HTML
standards put forth by the World Wide Web Consortium and the Internet
Engineering Task Force. Netscape's Web browser rendered such "enhancements"
as background colors and background images, a wider range of type sizes, greater
control over image alignment and sizing, embedded tables, and the infamous "blink"
- none of which were (and most still aren't) in the official HTML standards.
The proverbial toothpaste was out of the tube.

It wasn't long before industry giants Sun and Microsoft got into the act.
Sun proffered, though it has since abandoned, its own Web client, Hot Java,
which augmented basic HTML with the support of Java applets and script. Not to
be outdone by Netscape, Microsoft countered with a Web browser which rendered
another superset of standard HTML tags including background audio, colored
tables, and the equally infamous scrolling "marquee". Netscape, in
the meantime pushed forward with frames and plug-ins.

Meanwhile, the popularity of the Internet has spawned a bewildering array of
Web browsers by minor players who just want to grab a piece of the Web
development action. These are the pilot fish of the developer community who try
to follow one or more of the big three as closely as they can while waiting
either to hit it big or sell out to a service provider. These are tenuous times
for the small Web developer.

WYSINWOTS

Since HTML defines what can and cannot be done in a Web document, it's the
key to the evolution of Web document appearance and functionality. As long as
the document content stays within the range of MIME types acceptable to the
server, it may contain just about any information at all - tags, anchors, media
types, you name it. That's both good and bad.

The good news is that there is enormous latitude for content providers and
developers to insert their interests and agendas into the technology. The bad
news is that there is enormous latitude for content providers and developers to
insert their interests and agendas into the technology.

HTML compliance has been a continuous problem for Web surfers and
developers. At no point since the inception of the Web have users been assured
that their browser will correctly render the documents and media as the authors'
intended. I'll refer to this problem as WYSINWOTS - What You See Isn't
Necessarily What's On The Server. The WYSINWOTS predicament is as old as the
Web itself.

That's where the Web Test Pattern comes in.

An Interactive, Digital, Test Pattern

Figure 1 is the homepage of the Web Test Pattern in its current incarnation
(as of June 1, 1996). The splash page encourages navigation to one of three
resources: the most recently added compliance tests, the main compliance testing
cybersphere or background information. These are the resources most likely to
be used by the frequent visitor, the infrequent visitor, and the newcomer,
respectively. The "visitor's bureau" augments more-or-less standard
CGI "welcome-message-plus-guestbook" fare with useful statistical
summaries of the browser types and host operating systems of the Test Pattern
users.

The core of the Test Pattern are the individual tests. Figures 2a and 2b
illustrate the effect of a test on individual browsers. Figure 2a is an
animated GIF file as rendered on NCSA Mosaic, version 2.1. Figure 2b is the
same animated GIF file as rendered on Microsoft's Internet Explorer, version 3.0
beta. Although there is no way to tell from these still shots, Figure 2b is
actually only one frame of an animation. The image in Figure 2a is all that
there is for Mosaic - not only doesn't the browser animate the media, it doesn't
reproduce the color of the first frame.

Figures 3a and 3b reveal the same differences with respect to Java applets.
Java applets are self-contained executables which are downloaded and launched by
the Web browser. As Figure 3a and 3b show, Microsoft's Internet Explorer isn't
adequate to the challenge where Netscape's Navigator is.

CONCLUSION

The issue of HTML compliance is a thorny one. There is certainly something
to be said for the steady, deliberative evolution of Web standards so that our
zeal doesn't become our undoing. Conversely, there is an understandable zest to
harness the capabilities of modern digital networks. HTML compliance headaches
come from these opposing forces.

The Web Test Pattern is one such resource to help ameliorate this problem.
The next time your browser acts up (or hangs up), give the Test Pattern a look.
It's an easy-to-use, GUI-based, general purpose test bench for determining
browser health.